W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2012

Re: [CSS Box Alignment] Comments on CSS Box Alignment proposal

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 11:38:36 -0700
Message-ID: <4FA9682C.2010308@inkedblade.net>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On 05/08/2012 02:37 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Tuesday 2012-05-08 11:11 +0200, L. David Baron wrote:
>>   * 'child-align' should be removed since there's no reason to
>>     separate it from 'content-align': if an element's children
>>     support 'box-align' or auto margins then 'content-align' is
>>     perfectly fine to use as the default rather than needing a
>>     separate property for this
>
> Actually, it just occurred to me that there might be a reason to
> have this separation:  if we want one property (likely
> 'child-align', but probably renamed to just 'align' and also
> applying to the element itself) to be inherited by default
> ("Inherited: yes") and the other not to be.

The distinction between the two is primarily due to flexbox
needing both. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with the third set.

> That's not what's described in [1], where all properties are
> currently marked "Inherited: no", but it would be what's needed to
> represent HTML's align attribute in a simple way in CSS.

This is handled right now by 'content-justify': see the definition
of ''auto''.

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 18:39:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:53 GMT